Originally printed under the headings of Chapters IX and X in the author’s Prize-winning book “The Government of the Kingdom of Christ”, first published in 1872 by Johnstone, Hunter & Co. of Edinburgh, and James Nisbet & Co. during the 1870’s at the combined charges of Wanlockhead and Leadhills, in the lead and gold-mining districts of the Lowther Hills in South-Western Scotland, some 25–30 miles north of Dumfries. Porteus was the author of about seven books, and many booklets, all soundly in the Scots Calvinist tradition, and was awarded the degree Doctor of Divinity from the University of Edinburgh. Editor.

Prize-winning book “The Government of the Kingdom of Christ”, first published in 1872 by Johnstone, Hunter & Co. of Edinburgh, and James Nisbet & Co. during the 1870’s at the combined charges of Wanlockhead and Leadhills, in the lead and gold-mining districts of the Lowther Hills in South-Western Scotland, some 25–30 miles north of Dumfries. Porteus was the author of about seven books, and many booklets, all soundly in the Scots Calvinist tradition, and was awarded the degree Doctor of Divinity from the University of Edinburgh. Editor.

“The Church, which is His body” (Eph. 1:23) “Is Christ divided?” (1 Cor. 1:13) SOCIETIES of Christians hold — (1.) that they are independent of each other, church organization being complete in each worshipping assembly; and (2.) that church members are entitled to regulate church affairs, the governing power resting solely in the brotherhood. These are the two leading ideas of the Independent or Congregational form of church government.

The first Independent congregation was formed in England in the year 1616 by the efforts of Henry Jacob. He embraced and improved the plan proposed by Brown of Norwich, which was very much a reaction from the prelatic persecutions of the period. This view was first broached by Morely of the French Reformed Church in 1561. In England it became a subject of controversial discussion. A considerable number of Christians have since embraced the Independent or Congregational plan and contend that it was prescribed by Christ and His apostles. Not only is this held by those bearing the name of Independents, but also by branches of the Church having other designations. As the peculiarities of this scheme are not laid down in any common formula, creed, or confession, and as each congregation, isolated from all others, may differ widely in important points, their general principles alone can be gathered from the writings of particular advocates, and the practices of these Churches.¹ The designation ‘Independent’ arises from the assertion that each congregation is intrusted with its own local government, being in that respect complete and isolated from every other. Their fundamental position is, that there are only two senses in which the word ‘church’ is used in the New Testament: (1.) either a single congregation, or (2.) the whole collective body of Christians. It is then maintained that the New Testament churches were local, isolated, and independent in government, unless for advice under difficulties.

This is not a full statement of the matter. It is true that congregations had then equal rights. No one congregation had a right of control over any other. The question necessary to be discussed properly is, whether the churches had a common government? This is denied by Independents. The affirmative is provable by two propositions: — First, the Church is one body, possessing a common government. The object of the apostles’ care was not isolated churches, but parts of a whole — the one body of Christ. Paul authoritatively wrote to Rome before he had seen that church. So Peter (wrote) to others. Constantly, as far as circumstances permitted, they acted together as one governing body for that one Church. And that not merely as apostles, but as elders; for they associated the elders with them in acts of government, and commanded the elders so to act together.

It is true that New Testament churches met in one place for divine worship, or at least, for discipline and government. These churches are spoken of in the plural number; for every several assembly having legally constituted officers is a rightly constituted church. Still, it must be inquired whether, in particular localities, there were more Christians than one place could accommodate for divine worship, having a plurality of ministers, governed by one association of officers, and yet termed one Church? The affirmative of this fourfold question has been amply substantiated from Scripture in the previous enquiry.² A brief glance at the evidence alone is necessary here.

¹ Over one hundred years after Porteus wrote, one has to say that south of Berwick, as it were, Independency has run riot, and more so sadly, amongst Evangelicals than anyone else. The Evangelical witness is therefore a multiplicity of disparate assemblies, at best linked together by very rough and ready “least-common-denominator” rules. One of the resultant effects of all this is that nobody at all among them feels, or takes, any official or organized responsibility for the welfare of those Christians who are isolated by virtue of distance from participating in any congregation, for whom the administration of the Sacraments and the preaching of the Word of God are but far distant dreams. Under a proper Presbyterial system of Church government responsibility extends outwards from the local congregation toward such people. Ed.

² Reference is here made to arguments in preceding chapters of Porteus’ book. But as these arguments are presented hereon in abbreviated form, the reader will nevertheless be able to follow.

1. In many places there were more Christians than one particular place could accommodate for religious purposes. In other places the number would not be greater. In some it is impossible to suppose this. In Jerusalem, in a short time, three thousand, then five thousand, and afterwards whole multitudes, were added to the Church. Could upwards of eight thousand, at the lowest computation, properly assemble together for fellowship? If so, in what place? The historian Mosheim,³ whose leanings are not in the direction of Presbytery, ventures his reputation upon this impression:

“Either I perceive nothing, or this is certain, and most amply confirmed, that the apostles gathered together in Jerusalem the multitudes of Christians, and had them divided into many small communities, and that to each of these were appointed its own place of sacred fellowship, its own ministers, and its own presbyters”.⁴ The expression “in one place” found in Acts 2:1, must be balanced by the phrase “from house to house” found in Acts 20:20.⁵ (In Jerusalem) while they were permitted, the temple was the general place of resort. But that was only for a brief period. For celebrating the Lord’s Supper, for instruction, acts of worship and discipline, they were distributed from house to house. So expressions employed to describe the success of the gospel in Samaria, Antioch, Iconium, Lydda, Corinth, and other places are incompatible with the idea that only one congregation was formed in each city. Thus, at Ephesus, Paul and others laboured long and successfully. Not only Jewish, but Gentile converts were very numerous.

These would naturally form separate congregations. Various places are mentioned, as at the school of Tyrannus (Acts 19:9), and the church in the house of Aquila and Priscilla (1 Cor. 16:19). There “mightily grew the Word of God, and prevailed.”

2. In these places the multitude of disciples had a numerous body of pastors, or spiritual instructors. Estimate the number of ministers of the Word in Jerusalem, Antioch, Corinth, Philippi, Ephesus, etc., and the fact is necessarily established that a plurality of congregations must have existed.

³ Johann Lorenz Von Mosheim, a German Lutheran, lived 1694 to 1755, was author of a famous, but now rarely obtainable set of volumes on Church History. Mosheim was Professor of Theology and Chancellor of the then new University of Göttingen, having been honoured with this appointment by King George II of England, founder of that said University. Mosheim’s Institutes of Ecclesiastical History are useful volumes, but are written from a Lutheran perspective.

⁴ We have not been able to locate the exact place in Mosheim that Porteus refers to here, partly because of highly variant pagination between the different English editions. But Porteus is right to point out that Mosheim was no friend of Presbytery. Ed.

⁵ These two references of course refer, firstly to the small band of disciples meeting Pre-Pentecost, and secondly to the Apostle Paul’s ministrations in Ephesus, where it appears another large congregation developed, similar to that of Jerusalem post-Pentecost. Porteus is drawing attention here to the fact that large congregations gathered in one city consisted of many small ‘house-meetings’ or small congregations which were conceived as being all part of the one major congregation in that city, be it Ephesus, or Jerusalem.

3. That one association of officers governed these congregations in each locality is undoubted. The elders of Ephesus were together exhorted by Paul, so to govern “all the flock”. So for all the flock at Ephesus, this was the common council (Acts 20:28). So Peter, in writing to the elect strangers scattered in various places, calls them “the flock” (Compare 1 Peter 1:1, addressed to the “elect strangers scattered abroad throughout Pontus, Galatia...etc.”, with 1 Peter 5:2, that the elders should “feed the flock of God which is among you”), not the “flocks” and commands the elders among them to feed and oversee that one flock, as accountable to Christ (1 Peter ch. 5). This union of those holding the same essential principles by subjection to a common government, was and is the outward evidence that these several congregations were one Church. Persecution, pestilence, the want of a suitable house of worship, and other causes,⁶ prevented them assembling together; notwithstanding, by one common government, their outward unity was attested. Single congregations possessed their own elders; others were unitedly governed by associated elders as their representatives. Hence —

4. These associated congregations are addressed as the one Church of that locality. This is no mis-use of the word. Though composed of many parts in its essential conditions, the Church of Christ is one. All who are united to Christ by the powerful operation of the Holy Spirit, are portions of that one Church which He has purchased with His blood. So the Church visible is one — one in a locality — one in a nation — one in the world. Gaius is not only the host of Paul, but of “the whole Church” (Rom. 16:23). This Church is to be told of offences, its decisions are to be heard (Matt. 18:17). Though scattered by persecution, its members are mutually addressed as the flock of Christ put under the care of shepherds. It is recognized in Jerusalem, in Corinth, in Ephesus, and elsewhere, as one Church, though embracing a plurality. The self-same decisions apply to that one Church, whether found in Jerusalem, in Antioch, in Derbe, in Lystra, in Iconium, throughout Phrygia, or the region of Galatia (Acts chapters 15 and 16). There are “churches” in Judea, Samaria, Macedonia, for each separate congregation is still a Church. So (also) several together are a Church, and the Churches of all countries are still the one Church of Jesus Christ, according to His Word: “Other sheep have I which are not of this fold; them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd” (John 10:16).

The Church of a nation is not less a proper and scriptural expression. Stephen declared of Christ, “This is He that was in the Church in the wilderness” (Acts 7:38).⁷ This application of the word is to the entire nation of the Jews, which, in the wilderness, could not number less than two millions. The same term is also applied to that nation when settled in Canaan in the days of David, and numbering many millions; “In the midst of the Church will I sing praise unto thee” (Psalm 22:22-25; Heb. 2:12).⁸ As correctly then as the term “church” is applied to the nation of Israel, so then, may the entire Churches of any other land — subject, as that of Palestine, to one common government — be designated as “the church” of that country. And so the Church throughout the world. The one meaning, “society of believers” is in each case preserved.⁹ These explicit declarations of Scripture being unsuitable to the plan devised and adopted so recently as seventeen hundred years after Christ, special efforts are made to destroy their force.¹⁰ Thus it is asserted that there was no such Church in the house in the city of Ephesus. It is said that Ephesus stood within the Asia of the Scriptures, and that Paul’s salutation from the Asiatic Churches included the Church in Ephesus. (See 1 Cor. 16 especially verse 19). This is too forced to be accepted. Continually that apostle is found sending salutations from Churches widely separated, and yet singling out individuals: “The Churches of Christ salute you......Gaius mine host, and of the whole Church, saluteth you” (Romans 16:16 and 16:23). So, in writing from Ephesus to the Church in Corinth, with one dash of his pen he sends the salutations of the Churches of Asia; but he does not forget that small congregation assembling in the house of his friends, a beloved portion of the saints and faithful at Ephesus (1 Cor. 16:19). Then, it is maintained (by some) that their (that is, Aquila and Priscilla’s) house and Church were not within the limits of Ephesus; because if it was, the salutation was unnecessary, (it being already included under the salutation from “the Churches of Asia” Ed.).

⁶ This is an important point. In an age when Christianity can settle peacefully in a community, it is relatively easy to build chapels and churches and organize ‘local’ congregations. When Christianity comes under attack, however, believers get harried from pillar to post, as it were, and chapels get burned down. The organization of nice, neat little ‘local’ congregations under such circumstances is either outright impossible, or next to impossible. Believers have to meet under such conditions where they can, how they can, and when they can, often in remote mountain conventicles, in forest glades, or in caves. Scots Presbyterianism is historically a magnificent example of how the Presbyterian system can cope with this kind of situation, and maintain a decent order and structure with co-ordinated action, features impossible under Independency in such circumstances.

⁷ The word used in the Greek N.T. for “church” is ekklēsia also used to refer to the congregation of Israel in the LXX or Ancient Greek translation of the Old Testament. In the LXX it translates the Hebrew ‧qāhāl (Pronounced roughly as “KA-HAL”). Both words carry in their meaning the notion of being “called”, and are used especially of a gathering of the people as God’s Assembly, “called” that is, by Him. This is a distinctively religious usage of the word in Scripture, where one finds that its usage is avoided in respect of any other kind of assembly. At the root of the Greek word ekklēsia (pronounce it EK-LAY-SEE-A), is the verb ek-kaleō which in Classical Greek means “to call out / call forth / summon / call out to oneself”. In all this one sees how appropriately the term is applied to both Israel and the Church. Both are, of course, the One Church. (Cf. Liddell-Scott: Greek-English Lexicon, and Colin Brown et al translation of Theologisches Begriffslexikon zum Neuen Testament: Zondervan 1986.) Ed.

⁸ We have edited this paragraph of Porteus’ original, shortening it and thereby excising what we are convinced was his faulty, and unnecessary reference to a textual variant in the Greek manuscripts. As was the trend in his day, he held the new manuscript researches in high regard, as did the Hodges in the USA and eventually Warfield. What he has to say on this account does not, in our considered opinion materially advance, or attenuate his case in respect of the argument he is raising here concerning “national churches”. Ed.

⁹ Porteus has accumulated a powerful phalanx of scriptural evidence in support of Presbyterianism, which is, we believe, impregnable. In previous chapters he gives the details of the arguments of which we have presented here in brief. We hope to publish these details in Issue 12. Ed.

So, St. Paul, inspired though you were, you are to submit, (it seems) to the correction of the uninspired in the modern age! You are, it seems, guilty of redundancy! Aquila and Priscilla, it seems, never had a church at Ephesus!

Paul is therefore made out (by these people) to have erred. But who will believe this? What Paul does do, writing from Ephesus, is to send salutations to the Church at Corinth. He says, “Aquila and Priscilla salute you much in the Lord, with the Church that is in their house” (1 Cor. 16:19). That he speaks of a Church at Ephesus is evident: “I am glad”, he says, “of the coming of Stephanus, and Fortunatus, and Achaicus, for they have refreshed my spirit...... All the brethren greet you” (1 Cor. 16:18-21). Can anyone, realizing that Paul was then in Ephesus, understand that ‘coming’ as to any other place, or that these brethren were not the faithful in that city?¹¹ The other reference must, therefore, (concerning the church in the house of Priscilla and Aquila, ch. 16, v. 19) also be to Ephesus. This passage proves that, when the first Epistle to the Corinthians was written, there existed at least this Church in the house, as well as the larger Church in Ephesus.¹² To whatever extent, then, that union of congregations under one government of associated elders can be carried, such a united body may be lawfully termed ‘one church’.

Every emblem employed proclaims that the visible Church is one. It is the “Kingdom of Heaven”, the “olive-tree” (Rom. 11:17), “one body” (1 Cor. 12:13). And there must be no schism in this one Church of Christ. These declarations cannot refer to the Church invisible, for therein are found members good and bad, wise and foolish — gifts bestowed even upon those who are unbelieving — offices instituted for the instruction, conversion, and sanctification of many, while others are cut off. These members are addressed by Christ and His apostles as genuine saints, for they are treated according to their profession. Even were it possible that the branches of the Church were composed of none but saints, where were its unity if these were totally independent of each other? The term “independent” as applied to the Church, is unscriptural; and the thing is both contrary to Scripture and to right reason.¹³ It is impossible to regard a number of entirely different fractions, distinguished by a variety of different practices, as one.¹⁴ The body of Christ has members in particular, but that body manifests its oneness by one doctrine and one common government.

Secondly, CHURCHES WIDELY SCATTERED WERE GOVERNED BY REPRESENTATIVE ASSOCIATED ELDERS. Following from the first proposition (pages 3–8 above Ed.) it is necessary to apply special attention to the fact that a common government, over those maintaining the same essential truth, being the outward bond of unity, was exercised in apostolic times, and that not only where congregations were near each other, but over those far removed. The assembly or council of the apostles and elders at Jerusalem is a sufficient example, applicable to all the exigencies of the Church in every place and period.¹⁵ Independents generally maintain that the 15th chapter of the Acts is either an example of an infallible decision, or of the advice of one Church at the solicitation of another. Consideration of this important passage will show rather that it gives authority for representative associated government by the elders of the Church.

Thus it is firstly important to note that (the Council of Jerusalem narrative in Acts 15) is:

NOT AN EXAMPLE OF AN INFALLIBLE DECISION. The Church at Antioch might have had a decision given with infallible certainty without any such assembly.¹⁶ The miraculous works of Paul were sufficient to prove that he was divinely appointed and inspired. He could have given an infallible decision at once, had the will of God been so. It was solely because the matter was not so decided, after “no small dissension and disputation” (Acts 15:2), that Paul and Barnabas agreed, along with others, to go up as deputies.

When they came to Jerusalem, and were met with the apostles and elders, there is no indication that they were solely guided by miraculous influence. The reference itself, the mode of procedure, and the express testimony recorded, all concur in disproving the Independent’s supposition.

It is unaccountable to think that now infallibility would be manifested, when it had been denied amidst the discussions at Antioch. That the question was referred at all — and then not to the apostles only, but to “the apostles and elders” (Acts 15:2), to the ordinary as well as the extraordinary officers of the church — proves that, up to its consideration by the assembly, an infallible decision had not been pronounced.

The mode of procedure adopted cannot be reconciled with the supposition of miraculous inspiration. The ordinary elders are called together, are allowed to deliberate and to give judgment, on a footing of perfect equality with the apostles.

But uninspired men cannot give any addition to the voice of inspiration. And nothing occurs to give an impression that these elders were inspired. Then, apostles and elders come together to consider the matter, and there was much disputing (Acts 15:6, 7). All the ordinary appliances of evidence, reasoning and citation of Scripture, were employed.¹⁷ But this is never the manner of inspiration. In all the reasonings of the apostles in the epistles, it is manifest that they were convinced that what they decided was the mind of God. Where is there one instance of a gathering, consultation, and much disputing amongst the apostles by themselves, before any epistle was written? Do they not rather proclaim, as the Old Testament prophets — “Thus saith the Lord”; and “I have the mind of Christ”? The testimony of the divine record is no less express. James stated that his sentence or proposal was, that they should write indicating that the Gentiles should not be troubled with circumcision, but that other restrictions should be laid upon them.

This proposal pleased the assembly, with this addition, that a deputation should communicate their decision. As “it seemed good unto us being assembled with one accord, to send chosen men” (Acts 15:25), so, it is stated that “it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us,” thus to decide (Acts 15:28). These words, “seemed to us”, are equivalent to this: Such is our opinion or judgment, after the most careful examination. Could it be possible to use these expressions were this an inspired decision? Did the Old Testament prophets, or the apostles, on other occasions, in giving infallible utterances say, “Thus saith the Lord and we?”

Manifestly, the apostles, in this case, acted, not as pronouncing an inspired and infallible judgment, but as ordinary ministers, so that the judgment of the elders might coincide with theirs, and for an example in the future government of the Church. The expression “seemed good to the Holy Ghost”, is appropriate to the decision, in accordance with the mind of the Spirit, in the passages of Scripture adduced. It indicates nothing more.

¹⁰ Note should be taken here of 1 Cor. 16:8 and 9, where the apostle says he will “tarry at Ephesus until Pentecost. For a great door and effectual is opened unto me, and there are many adversaries.”

Obviously Paul was at Ephesus when he wrote this Epistle, the Greek here reading epimeno which means “to remain”, or “to continue”. The AV translates this as “tarry”. But some readers may have a print of the AV which carries an appendage note after the last verse of 1 Cor. 16, which says that 1 Corinthians was “written from Philippi by Stephanus, and Fortunatus...etc”. Such notes are not part of the inspired Scripture, and were added centuries later than the originals, and are not accurate. Porteus elsewhere points this out himself. Ed.

¹¹ One ought to take serious note here of the kind of Scriptures Porteus examines carefully in this matter. What are, on the surface of it, obscure texts, like “Aquila and Priscilla salute you...etc.”, are in fact vital clues that reveal all kinds of details concerning life in the early Church, as to matters of organisation, protocol, and many many other things. No Scriptures are redundant! But not all Scriptures catch our interest! Porteus has, in his book, by careful study of the “uninteresting” Scriptures, uncovered a mine of vital details concerning Church government that is of paramount concern to all Christians, especially relevant to us today. Ed.

son. It is impossible to regard a number of entirely different fractions, distinguished by a variety of different practices, as one.¹³ The body of Christ has members in particular, but that body manifests its oneness by one doctrine and one common government.